fw W

\.^-.i- -^.-f- -^wi' "IWi ^jA %:,'■: h

\)

i

MM-MMJ

t3

^^_^' >i.,->^

^.M.

MM

m ^i

i m m

■"■'•¥' rr *i J

^■'-..T :■::;'■ -^,;f ■ -^.f ^m tm

m:m'^~

;f iMl Wl"'?^''^ ''^^

W "^ %-1 1^^^ M^' F^l J^ #^ #-W^^if^.f -Ir ■■■p^l i^ ■ Pt^i PI. i^^ •

The

False Peace

Protectionism Means Endless Conflict

By HENRI LAMBERT

Manufacturer in ' Charleroi, Belgium

Titular Member of the Societe d'Economie Politique, of Paris

The International Free Trade League

38 ST. BOTOLPH STREET BOSTON, MASS.

International Free Trade League

38 ST. BOTOLPH STREET, BOSTON, MASS.

A League to INDUCE Peace

OBJECT : to free production by abolishing all such restrictions as

taxes, licenses and other economic barriers to the free exchange

of the products of men's labor in all parts of the world.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

James H. Dillard William C. Edwards Edmund C. Evans Frank W. Garrison 3oLTON Hall Charles H. Ingersoll

Richard Mayer

Western Starr

Frank Stephens

Emanuel Sternheim

Ellen Winsor

Daniel Kiefer, Treasurer

Kenneth B. Elliman, Secretary

ARGENTINA Alberto Alves de Lima Ferdinand Lodi

AUSTRALIA

E. J. Craigie A. G. Huie Cyril F. James

AUSTRIA Julius Meinl

BELGIUM Sen. Henri LaFontaine Henri Lambert

BRAZIL A. de Queiros Telles

CANADA Christine Ross Barker D. W. Buchanan

F. J. Dixon, M.L.A. W. A. Douglass, M.A. Harriet Dunlop Prenter CTiarles P. Rice

CHINA Dr. W. E. Macklin Sun Yat Sen

ALABAMA Ernest B. Gaston ARKANSAS Dr. Robert McAdam

CALIFORNIA Dr. David Starr Jordan J. H. Ryckman Upton Sinclair

CONNECTICUT Mary B. Ely Theodore Schroeder DELAWARE Donald Stephens DIST. OF COLUMBIA Charles T. Hallinan Hon. J. H. Ralston IDAHO

G. M. Paulsen

ILLINOIS Otto Cullman George E. Dawson Fay Lewis Francis Neilson

INDIANA J. H. McGiU

MARYLAND H. Martin Williams

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DENMARK Dr. Georg Brandes

ENGLAND Henry Bool Francis W. Hirst J. A. Hobson George Lansbury Arnold Lupton, M.E. E. D. Morel H. M. Swanwick, Mj\. Col. J. C. Wedgwood,M.P. Charles Wicksteed, J.P.

FRANCE Georges Darien Ernest Mansuy

GERMANY Prof. G. F. Nicolai Lida Gustava Heymann

INDIA

N. S. Hardiker

MEXICO Linn A. E. Gale

MASSACHUSETTS Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Jr. Frank Grant Dr. William A. Neilson John Orth

MICHIGAN Wilber Brotherton S. G. Howe Frederick F. Ingram

MINNESOTA C. J. Buell S. A. Stockwell

MISSISSIPPI Prof. Calvin S. Brown

MISSOURI R. C. Marr Judge James M. Rea NEW JERSEY Hon. Mark M. Fagan Dr. Mary D. Hussey

NEW YORK Crystal Eastman Dr. A. L. Goldwater Hon. Frederic C. Howe Fanny Garrison Villard

NETHERLANDS Hon. J. T. Cremer Dr. A. Van Daehne van Varick

NEW ZEALAND Hon. George Fowlds P. J. O'Regan, M.P.

NORWAY Governor Hakon Loken

RUSSIA L. A. K. Martens Santeri Nuorteva

SCOTLAND Harry Llewelyn Davies

SPAIN Antonio Albendin Baldomero Argente

SWITZERLAND Jean Debrit Dr. Auguste Forel Dr. Raoul Gerber URUGUAY Dr. Felix Vitale

OHIO

Edmund Vance Cooke Dr. J. E. Tuckerman Fred S. Wallace A. L. Weatherly. D.D.

OREGON Col. C. E. S. Wood PENNSYLVANIA

Eliza Middleton Cope A. Warren Kelsey C. F. Shandrew Marshall E. Smith

TENNESSEE Bolton Smith

TEXAS William A. Black John Davis

WASHINGTON William Bouck W. E Brokaw

WISCONSIN Zona Gale Dr. J. Weller Long

\

By Transfer

APR 14 1923

lyuA-^,

The False Peace

Protectionism Means Endless Conflict

THE nations have "concluded peace." The vanquished have subscribed to the protectionist peace. The sense of insecur- ity among nations remains, — it is even accentuated. Everyone feels it, everyone deplores it and declares that after four years i^ of immense military effort to overthrow autocracies, followed by ten months of study during which the leaders of both hemi- spheres discussed the problem of organizing the relationships of the democratized peoples, the chief result is a large scrap of diplomatic paper. It does not seem to be realized that if nothing is settled, if the future seems less certain than ever, it is doubtless because "the conventions of peace" are not based on any inherent and essential principle of international truth, justice and morality. Necessity or natural law is superior to human will and custom. Nor could a popular "will to peace" prevent new and worse wars from following closely on the heels of the one just ended if it con- tinued to disregard the law of unity as expressed and revealed by the nature of things.

To give a more concrete illustration of our meaning let us take President Wilson's Fourteen Points as an example. They were for the most part concessions to political empiricism, com- promises with false conceptions which have hitherto prevailed in international relations. But the Third Point, inspired by philo- sophic truth, set forth the natural and permanent internationaJ requirements. It provided the necessary economic foundatio'^ for peaceful intercourse between nations. Since the econonMC needs of man are his most vital needs, his economic activi/'^s, interests and rights are immediate and fundamental. Harmoi'^ous intercourse must, from the very nature of things, be depf/ident upon the economic conditions. Is it not clear that nati/^'C has provided for the economic interdependence and unity of the nations by the unequal distribution over the surface of the globe

3

of the available materials of wealth necessary to mankind? Does not co-operation in the free exchange of economic services become for them a first necessity, and consequently a primary moral obligation ? Harmony and peaceful intercourse, whether between individuals or nations, are impossible unless based on this first principle of freedom, justice and morality.

It will be recalled that the third of the Fourteen Points de- manded "The removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers, and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating together for its maintenance." It laid down the principle, the primary condi- tion; it provided the very basis for a genuine association of peoples, a real League of Nations. Now, the various Wilson Points have received a broad application with the exception of the third, which has been utterly ignored. The peace lacks its natural and essential foundation. Therefore there is not, there cannot be, peace !

Germany is especially to blame, for, in the reply made by Count Brockdorff-Rantzau to the Allies' treaty proposal, while seeming at first to rely on the Third Point, the words he used were devoid of precision or clearness, but were couched in sibylline terms (a "universal commercial treaty" was proposed) which would have justified every suspicion, had they been able to chal- lenge serious attention. Now, it was more incumbent upon Germany than upon any other nation to demand a thoroughgoing application of the Third Point, by means of a gradual inaugura- tion of universal Free Trade. What she could have done, and ought to have done, was to make her acceptance of the peace treaty rest upon it, declaring herself ready for the immediate abolition of her own economic barriers. Had she done so, she would have taken an impregnable diplomatic position, a position that could not be attacked by the allied diplomats, and irreproach- able before history. She lamentably, stupidly failed to do so.

This new blunder of Germany (of all nations the most imbued with false theories, the most "learned" in error and ignorant of truth) in no way excuses the serious fault of the rulers of the allied democracies. The British Prime Minister said recently in the House of Commons that he "defied anyone to show that the

4

peace treaty was lacking in justice or wisdom." I accept Lloyd George's challenge and affirm it to be without wisdom or justice. The treaty is fundamentally and thoroughly unjust, since we deny our late enemies economic equality; that is to say, equality in fundamental human rights. It is unwise, because, while impos- ing indemnities on Germany, it forbids her the only two means of paying, viz.: either colonies in proportion to her needs, or, preferably, free trade with the colonies of other nations. It is supremely lacking in wisdom because war results from inequality of territorial possessions, of ''places in the sun," of empires; and because, by its tendencies, its spirit, and the monopoHes it sanc- tions, the treaty has greatly emphasized and aggravated this chief cause of wars, whether past or future.

The Paris "peace conventions" have too clearly the effect, if not the purpose, of sacrificing the civilization of the world in order to satisfy the predatory designs of a few Great Powers. Having waged endless wars against weak nations, and conquered an enormous part of the territories and natural resources which the planet offers to all mankind, they now propose to retain them by force. (This is called ''reaping the fruits of victory.") If they persist .in such enterprises of national plunder, sooner or later deserved and inexorable punishment will overtake them. In the meantime, it is a simple matter of self-interest for these nations, only too well provided with places in the sun, to proclaim their desire for peace, implying thereby a permanent territorial status quo as well as the possession and exclusive use of the natural riches which ought, by exchange, to be made the common pos- session of all mankind.

But will this peace of the Great Allies with its imperialism, its protectionism, its monopolies— its British, French, America//, Italian and Japanese Imperial Preference— will it long satisfy tAe cheated and despoiled nations which comprise the rest of hurr-i"- ity ?^ They will abhor it within ten years,— as soon, in fact, as /hey realize the iniquity which has been treacherously imposed upon them, unwelcome guests at Nature's banquet table.

How can the numerous small democracies into which Central and Eastern Europe have been subdivided live in peace-'' How can they live at all if, in imitation of the great protect/onist and imperialist democracies of the old world and the new, they seek

5

isolation and "protect" themselves against each other? How can these young democracies enjoy economic and political prosperity, how can they survive if French, American and British protection- ism monopolizes the greater part of the world's resources?

The protectionist peace of the "allied democracies" is anti- democratic, absurd and iniquitous. It is an oppressive peace, im- posed by force in defiance of right. That is my reply to Lloyd George.^

The statesmen gathered at Paris were the masters of human destiny. It was their duty, and it was within their power, to solve the international problem once for all, making further wars useless and conquest and annexation an absurdity. But they could only do so by making a Free Trade peace, gradually open- ing the world to free economic intercourse in which all countries would be on equal terms, thus making the whole earth a "place in the sun" for every nation. A pax economica is the only pos- sible anti-imperialist and anti-militarist peace, the only democratic peace, the only fundamentally just, wise and true peace. ^

^Also to M. Clemenceau who considers that the Treaty of Versailles "is nevertheless, a fine treaty" . . . since it consecrates "a peace of human solidarity." Thus, the statesman chosen as President of the great council of humanity at the gravest moment of history was, in common with those who surrounded him at Paris and Versailles, ignorant of the fact that human solidarity must in the nature of things begin with economic condi- tions, man's vital needs — food, clothing and shelter. And this happens in the 20th century, after fifty years of industrial civilization. And we are surprised at the disastrous results of such romantic politics !

^ As long ago as 1908, during the discussions over the annexation of the independent Congo State by Belgium, the present writer proposed the inter- nationalization of this colony, which might thus have formed the nucleus ?if a great international State, comprising the various colonies of the Congo, \ench, English, German, Portuguese and Belgian. This international cflonial domain would have been open to the free economic activities of al^ations on a basis of absolute equality. Although its adoption might ha^tt dissipated the black clouds then overshadowing Europe, the project did^ot meet with favor either in Belgium or elsewhere.

^om that time to 1914 the writer has embraced every opportunity to explij^ that the adoption of the open door policy — or at least equal treat- ment lor all nations — in all the European colonies would supply the means, and th» only hope of escaping a European conflagration. He believes that this plati is still the only one capable of contributing effectively to the solution ^ the international crisis.

Immejjiate free trade with the colonies — ^while we are waiting for universal 5.ree Trade — would brighten with the light of truth and justice a sky hitherto charged with the clouds of ignorance and injustice that overhang most of the nations and their governments.

\

During the whole length of the war Free Trade offered the desirable and practicable solution. As I never ceased by speech and pen to insist from the beginning of the great conflict, both in England and the United States, this principle was alone powerful enough to bring the war promptly to an end and create a definite sense of international security, thereby averting revolution and anarchy and saving the world from barbarism. It required, how- ever, not only in Germany but in the Allied and Associated countries as well, an understanding that was everywhere tragically lacking — a comprehension of true international needs, of political wisdom, philosophy and foresight.

In all countries and in every circle in Europe everyone, from the Pope, the emperors, kings, presidents of Republics and heads of governments, to the lesser politicians, professors and writers, — everyone (or so we like to beHeve for the honor of mankind) sincerely tried from the first to the last day of the war to put an "honorable" end to the abominable and shameful international drama of mutual slaughter and destruction. But they all relied either on childish, artificial or insincere political combinations, or on territorial dickering or more or less oppressive economic machinations. They mistook for ''realities" a base materialism which stimulated their appetites while exasperating their preju- dices and passions. No one took the trouble to seek agreement in the only feasible way, by satisfying the natural, common and fundamental needs of the nations in acknowledgment of inter- national morality, a course dictated alike by nature and the force of circumstances.

At the Peace Conference the Four did their worst. Instead of warning the civilized world against the old errors which wer^? the underlying cause of the wars of the past; instead of instruj^' ing the nations in economic freedom, the fundamental truth ^^ internationalism; instead of imposing Free Trade so sf^ely needed by the whole Continent upon Germany and Centra/ ^^^ Eastern Europe,^ and promising to adopt it themselves ;'i the near future, these great statesmen (themselves victims jf the protectionist superstition, if not of contemptible sch^^ies of domestic poHtics and party interest) seem to have done -heir best

' Cf . Yves-Guyot : Les Causes et les Consequences de la Gverre.

7

LIBRARY 0»^ CONGRESS

1

!

il ;|

ti

0 021 140 230 1 to avoid, either by word or deed, disturbing the Great Powers in the exercise of their shameful, wicked and criminal policy.

The Treaty of Paris has not succeeded in creating a sense of international security. It has not only failed to do so, but by giving the sanction of an international agreement to the violation of the primary rights of nations, it has greatly increased the sense of insecurity. It has thus compromised, perhaps irremedi- ably, the possibility of a solution to the social problem. If it is not promptly amended so as to give a vigorous application to the Free Trade principle, permitting the association of all countries in a genuine League of Nations based on economic and political co-operation,, this so-called treaty of peace will condemn the world to an indefinite period of wars, revolutions and counter-revolu- tions, and international and social anarchy, leading inevitably to barbarism.

Henri Lambert.

'1. 1'^.

'hg'\i\ti

ii ^»

■f M'M

":lif

t ., MM/I.

iff' . .'41 .^t l«t

"- -^1^ n mm J

^ Jiff «; I

M ^i£, «i ;

\

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ^

0 021 140 230 1

Hollinger

pH8.5

Mill Run F3-1 955

MM'

m 'm .IK.

I M

\ w iw- 4i|-

'6: i'^^

f W y :C % M- 'W

*-rf"%f- "iw w i# it

■ '' M W ''iP M /^

%jm

r fit? hC '%fi .Hi? '^iJ

W"^^' |»^ I"'' I*- ^

ik^' w- $\ yiMJ ■

k:kk.kj^.#'uv

W Wlif W JfT J/i >t 1'^ ^W*'k^^ h^^ >i. " >' '

,■•.1 'ir^sl m M

■I if ^1 'Cj^

^■H^-- ' ■■■: %■ M ^ff vC M « . i ^^ tu- \ :■ 4 ■tuf mf m ^^ ,W .-^

*• ",£ ,jr «*' ;«f sy.